• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

I saw that Baghdad Bob and the trump administration said that everything is going great with the order and people fully support it and you should ignored the dissenting minority voices. Guess they missed where judges are smacking it down left and right. Whoever said before was correct trump is a piece of shit human.
 
" Originally Posted by DeacMan View Post
Obama in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bush II in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bill Clinton in his 8 years appointed 373. Bush I in 4 years 192. Reagan in 8 years 376. Appointed means the President got them appointed."

There are, I believe, just over 700 District court judges. So let's just call it 700. Obama appointed 268 of them. Bush II appointed 261. Who those appointees replaced I do not have a clear view on. There remain appointees from the Reagan, Clinton and Bush I days. I'd be shocked if there are any who go further back than that.

You even contradict yourself. One post says there are 325. The next says 268. Hmmmmmmmm.
 
Well, for starters, they do. They moved from being a nominee to an appointed judge.

"Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge."

Not when confirmation votes are never held.
 
I saw that Baghdad Bob and the trump administration said that everything is going great with the order and people fully support it and you should ignored the dissenting minority voices. Guess they missed where judges are smacking it down left and right. Whoever said before was correct trump is a piece of shit human.

The butt-hurt despair runs deep among defeated liberal elitists....and we are only 9 days into this 4-year gig.
 
Olympic gold medalist:

C3VvC45XAAEDYBN.jpg
 
You are ok with the executive branch trying to run all over the constitution?

BKF probably believes anybody who hates America enough to hire or work with a Muslim knew the risk.
 
" Originally Posted by DeacMan View Post
Obama in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bush II in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bill Clinton in his 8 years appointed 373. Bush I in 4 years 192. Reagan in 8 years 376. Appointed means the President got them appointed."



You even contradict yourself. One post says there are 325. The next says 268. Hmmmmmmmm.

Yeah. Hmmmm. These are just, you know, facts. Obama appointed 325 judges. That includes District Court judges, Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court justices. The 325 is real. It covers all of those courts. The 268 is real too. It covers only District Court appointees. He was in office 8 years. During his tenure judges he appointed may have chosen to retire, died, changed careers, etc. So, yes, he appointed a total of 325 judges, 268 of them were District Court appointees and it is possible and even probable he replaced one or more of his own appointees.
 
What does this argument have to do with the topic? I think we know Trump will get appoint hundreds of judges if he gets two terms.
 
Yeah. Hmmmm. These are just, you know, facts. Obama appointed 325 judges. That includes District Court judges, Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court justices. The 325 is real. It covers all of those courts. The 268 is real too. It covers only District Court appointees. He was in office 8 years. During his tenure judges he appointed may have chosen to retire, died, changed careers, etc. So, yes, he appointed a total of 325 judges, 268 of them were District Court appointees and it is possible and even probable he replaced one or more of his own appointees.

"Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge."

You're skipping that important confirmation part.
 
"Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge."

Not when confirmation votes are never held.

Again, he appointed 325 Federal judges during his Presidency. These are judges who were approved and confirmed to sit. That is just a fact. As are the numbers for all other Presidents I posted. They are just facts.
 
"Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge."

You're skipping that important confirmation part.

No. I'm not. You continue to believe an appointment does not equate to an approval. A nominee is not an appointment. An appointment means the judge was approved and gets to sit.
 
What does this argument have to do with the topic? I think we know Trump will get appoint hundreds of judges if he gets two terms.

Well, as Junebug and I have both tried to point out to you, getting a judge to sit does not mean the judge is your lap dog. You initially wrote he and the Republicans won't appoint anyone who will get in his way. And we are both trying to make note that our courts don't work this way. When you successfully complete a Federal judicial appointment that person gets to sit for life in the chair. They are not beholden to you on any issue.

You have now said that isn't what you meant. OK. You should be clearer about what you mean then.

The conversation then moved onto whether Trump would "stack" the courts. And the math bears out over the history of our country that no President gets to "stack" the courts. Yes, he will have many nominees get successfully appointed. But that does not mean (a) the courts will be stacked, and (b) that they will be his lap dog on every single issue.

This order is a prime example. It appears to be butchered both in how it was written and executed. The courts will do their job.

You may not like every decision that is made. And I won't like every decision that is made. But I also know that you are out of your depth trying to discuss judicial process and how decisions are made and supported. Both Junebug and I felt like you were suggesting our judicial system is nothing more than a collection of kangaroo courts. History simply does not support this. If that wasn't your point, say so.
 
Last edited:
No. I'm not. You continue to believe an appointment does not equate to an approval. A nominee is not an appointment. An appointment means the judge was approved and gets to sit.

"He(the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
 
"He(the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Dude. I know you are a lot smarter than this. You keep questioning the numbers. Here, I'll add in the word successfully in front of appointed from the post you continue to take issue with. Successfully appointed means the judge was approved to and did sit as a Federal judge. The numbers remain exactly the same.

Obama in his 8 years in office "successfully appointed" 325 judges. Bush II in his 8 years in office "successfully appointed" 325 judges. Bill Clinton in his 8 years "successfully appointed" 373. Bush I in 4 years 192. Reagan in 8 years 376. "Successfully appointed" means the President got the judge approved to and that the judge did sit as a Federal judge.
 
"He(the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

What is your point here? The President nominates a judge, the Senate does one of three things - votes yes to give consent, votes no not to give consent or chooses not to vote at all. In the first case, the judge is appointed and sworn in. In the second two, the judge is not. Now, some have made an argument, in the context of Garland, that if the Senate chooses not to vote at all, the President can just appoint himself, without the consent of the Senate. I think that's a shaky argument, at best, but in any event, I still have no idea what you are trying to argue.
 
Back
Top